Inviting Crime

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Inviting Crime

If you're going to shoot someone who poses a threat it's pretty much a rule to shoot to kill, in terms of tactics. Morality is in conflict with pragmatism seemingly.

[hayatewillown]

Re: Inviting Crime

The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber.

This does not make sense.

First of all, the man should have been more careful.
IF he did know that living near a crack-house would result in high crime, install an alarm system and for the love of god lock the door!

I would also say that this is the mans fault for not locking his door?
IF The thought hasn't been put to place, than it should have.

Unless you are going into a high presidential-like place, then you are allowed to carry a knife with you. Just not into a high security place.

Unless the man was intending to use the knife for his self defense when he was caught stealing: Thats my idea, and that brings us down to the point on whether or not the man was going to use that knife to kill someone intentionally. He would of had to have pulled out the knife. We can also put in play, that the man that killed the thief, did not commit foul-play.

We can also take into effect that stealing something, ( non federal) , should not result in the death penalty. We can take the fact that the thief had a knife, and if he was intending to use that knife, then why would he steal something if someone came there? IF he was found out, he COULD have used the knife. But he didn't.

I could say that I was cutting something up at a camp out ( like a coconut or fruit) , and my friend saw me mistakingly with a knife and not with the item I was cutting BECAUSE I dropped it. He could take out a gun or a knife and kill me mistakingly.

I guess that doesn't count though because it was a would be robber.

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

I think the implication that the OP was going for was that he left the place tempting for robbers -simply- because he could then kill them and have an (in his mind) ironclad defense. The debate is whether in such a situation, the defense ought to be valid, since it looks like he was -planning- to kill whoever tried to rob him.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Inviting Crime

Then I could say

its summer

Most people keep their windows open

Forgot to lock front door or didnt feel it was needed to be locked

Who doesn't sleep next to a crowbar? I have a hand gun but no crow bar.........yet lol

[AquaTeen]

Re: Inviting Crime

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

Well as you were stating if it were perfectly legal to do that in self-defense you should be innocent. I'm studying to be a criminal defense attorney so I'll put this in legal terms for you. It is for one, legal to do something like that in self-defense only if the other was using deadly force. For two if it's not written down as a law stating that it's illegal to use self-defense to kill someone and you get charges pressed that's means of ex-post facto and it's unconstitutional. So to wrap up you can't use deadly force in self-defense unless you have a fear for your life or if the other person's using deadly force and you should be innocent if it's not written in law form stating that it's illegal to use deadly force in self-defense because it would be means of ex-post facto and it would be unconstitutional.

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

You seem to have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't a question of whether or not it should be legal to kill someone in self-defense or not, or where the line is betwen self-defense and not.

The question was "If it appears that I am actively -baiting- someone into committing a crime simply so that I could appeal to a legal defense to justify my actions, ought I actually be protected by that law"

If a woman were to dress up in very revealing clothes, go into a very seedy bar, strut around, tell everyone how drunk she is, flirt with all the men, and then stagger out of the bar into a dark alley, all the while being actually completely sober, for the sole purpose of trying to tempt someone to come after her , intending to kill them and claim self-defense, should the claim of self-defense still stand.

I guess it's more a question of "Where could/should/would you draw the line between self-defense, and conspiracy/entrapment"

[AquaTeen]

Re: Inviting Crime

You seem to have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't a question of whether or not it should be legal to kill someone in self-defense or not, or where the line is betwen self-defense and not.

The question was "If it appears that I am actively -baiting- someone into committing a crime simply so that I could appeal to a legal defense to justify my actions, ought I actually be protected by that law"

If a woman were to dress up in very revealing clothes, go into a very seedy bar, strut around, tell everyone how drunk she is, flirt with all the men, and then stagger out of the bar into a dark alley, all the while being actually completely sober, for the sole purpose of trying to tempt someone to come after her , intending to kill them and claim self-defense, should the claim of self-defense still stand.

I guess it's more a question of "Where could/should/would you draw the line between self-defense, and conspiracy/entrapment"

Good point. I feel that the cry of self-defense shouldn't stand because it wasn't only she and the other people involved know that but of course others will take the side of the person that cried self-defense. So No it shouldn't stand.

[bobeck2]

Re: Inviting Crime

Assume that a law has been put into place where it is legal to kill someone in self defense within your own home (I'm not sure of the actual current laws involving this scenario).

A man leaves his doors and windows open and displays very expensive equipment that is easily visible from far away outside the home. It is quite apparent that thousands of dollars worth of easily movable equipment are available for the taking. The man lives next to a crack-house tenement which is notorious for crime to occur. He does not lock his door, does not even bother to shut it and makes sure to place his most valuable items near windows so they can be seen by others. Before long, a crack addict desperate for money wanders into his home and begins looting it. The man takes a crow bar from under his bed and in one deft swing kills the would be robber. He claims the murder was completely in self defense, the man broke into his house and was armed with a switch blade (the switch blade is found in the hand of the robber along with a sack filled with possessions belonging to the man). Is he innocent or should he be punished?

First off, the "bait setting" known as entrapment is irrelevant. There is no criminal law which is violated simply by making your good accessible with the intent that someone will steal them. (I must make a note here that entrapment does come up when dealing with police officers such as sting operations but for the general civilian entrapment does not apply to them).

Regarding whether he should be guilty or not will depend of whether deadly force was reasonable in light of the situation. If there was proof that a "reasonable person" in light of the situation would have felt the need to use deadly force. If the deadly force was only in defense of his property then he will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter (involuntary manslaughter involves a mistaken belief that deadly force was necessary).

However if the deadly force was used under a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary and that, he or his family was PERSONALLY at risk of imminent bodily harm then the deadly force would be justified.

Under the circumstances of this hypothetical and given the fact that dead men cant talk (hahah ) the one who did the killing will easily be able to argue (whether or not it actually happened) that he was justified in killing because there was a switch blade in his hand. This offers proof that he was in actually imminent serious bodily harm and thus was justified.

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

Right, but the question isn't about whether as written, his legal defense of 'self-defense- would stand up in court. The question is: If it could be proven that he went out of his way to encourage the attempted theft -so- he could defend himself with deadly force, should that not counter his claim of self-defense because he diliberately provoked the crime?

If I go up to someone and taunt and belabor him to try and goad him into hitting me, and then, since "he started it" I beat the everloving crap out of him "in self-defense because he attacked me" shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Inviting Crime

shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

Yes. This is one of the things I have thought about from time to time. I saw it happen in high school all the time between teenagers. Bully comes up to some kid, harasses him until the kid can't take it anymore and takes a swing, then the bully beats him up, claiming that self-defense was his motive. Unfortunately for the bully, when the school's police officers come around, he is not able to claim self-defense since he provoked the action of the other kid. Admittedly, in most of these cases there were witnesses to the event, but even when there weren't, the outcome was still the same.

In the expensive gadget/open door situation, realistically, I think that a jury would look at how much the guy seemed to be baiting the burglar to come into his house, and wouldn't simply say, "Well the guy came in and trespassed, so the homeowner was justified in taking action." Having a switchblade in his (the burglar's) possession doesn't necessarily warrant deadly force on the part of the homeowner unless the switchblade was obviously brandished in a threatening manner or something, which can't be proved since the only testimony a jury will hear is that of the homeowner.

This reminds me of all kinds of instances of frivolous lawsuits brought against large companies because of the lack of completely unnecessary warning labels. It's not exactly the same thing, I know, but the similarities between the type of people who will bring such frivolous lawsuits against companies and people who try to bait criminals into their homes are very interesting. It's like they're testing the court systems and the law, respectively, seeing what they can get away with by using their own interpretations of the law to their advantage.

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

McDonald's coffee woman, etc

Yeah, an 80 year old woman who was too old to react nearly quickly enough to the spilled coffee, who suffereed 3rd degree burns on six percent of her body, spent 8 days in the hospital, that was totally a frivolous lawsuit.

[bobeck2]

Re: Inviting Crime

If I go up to someone and taunt and belabor him to try and goad him into hitting me, and then, since "he started it" I beat the everloving crap out of him "in self-defense because he attacked me" shoudln't the fact that I was the instigator count against me?

The flaw in this as compared to the original hypothetical is that this "flaunting" asking to be hit would constitute consent to be hit. Thus the one consenting to the bodily harm can not retaliate and thus has no means for self defense.

In the case at hand however, simply placing all items near a window is not "implied consent" for them to take it. Thus, simply by intentionally making the crime more easily accomplished is no grounds for making one guilty of defending his personal property.

Edit. Further i must add that self defense is only justified to the extent necessary to remove the danger. Beating the ever loving daylights out of a person out of self defense is clearly beyond the scope of removing the present danger.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Inviting Crime

I thought the argument was that since the coffee cup didn't explicitly say "HOT" on it somewhere, she presented a case with which she sued McDonald's. Seems frivolous to me, since if you don't understand that coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself, you'll probably get burned, then you shouldn't be drinking it. Her age really is irrelevant.

How was it McDonald's' fault that she was burned by the coffee? Is McDonald's at fault every single time someone spills one of their hot products on themselves? Should they make people sign a waiver of liability before consuming coffee? Should they only sell cold coffee?

[devonin]

Re: Inviting Crime

I thought the argument was that since the coffee cup didn't explicitly say "HOT" on it somewhere, she presented a case with which she sued McDonald's. Seems frivolous to me, since if you don't understand that coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself, you'll probably get burned, then you shouldn't be drinking it. Her age really is irrelevant.

How was it McDonald's' fault that she was burned by the coffee? Is McDonald's at fault every single time someone spills one of their hot products on themselves? Should they make people sign a waiver of liability before consuming coffee? Should they only sell cold coffee?

The lawyer claimed that the coffee was made -too- hot, to the point where it was undrinkable, and thus defective in its production.

More importantly, before ANY of that came up, they asked for 20,000 dollars to cover the medical expenses (I think the actual bill only ended up being about 12 grand, but still) and considering she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS from their coffee, and spent over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts, I think she had a perfectly legitimate case at that point.

McDonalds countered with an offer of 800 bucks. That was when they got a lawyer involved, and when the numbers started getting crazy.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Inviting Crime

Ahhh, well I guess I didn't quite know the whole story, my mistake. In any case, my point about frivolous lawsuits in general in this post remains the same, just forget I ever mentioned the coffee woman.